...Wouldn’t it effectively be the convolution addressing a different ir at every sample?

Why can’t we do that?

To Ian-under certain circumstances its possible to do this using Halion sampler with PS-and it sounds much better to me than standart convolution,almost the same as reality if you have anechoically recorder samples.If you are interested,write to me at kvaca@c-mail.cz

kvaca: ...Wouldn’t it effectively be the convolution addressing a different ir at every sample?

kvaca: Why can’t we do that?

Well, "we" can do it, but it does not make much sense in doing so. There is no reason to do modulation for the sake of modulation if it isn't proven that modulation can make things sound "real" - of course, if we want it to sound "real".

From your own comments it looks like you have not found any working way to make convolution "real". I do not know it, too.

kvaca
on Jun 11, 2009, 10:20am:

Yes I havent found convolution to SOUND real,but Ive found a way for it to BEHAVE more real-at expense of using more IRs than usual-and if it sounds better why dont use it ??

And sometimes no modulation is needed at all /for static instruments/.

And-people often want to convolution sound same as real reverb but dont have anechoical records to it...and sometime is impossible to bring instrument to anechoical conditions/like pipe organ/.You are right Aleksey-lot of problems and lot of solutions,but nothing is perfect with convolution so far.But I must stress again-usually there nothing worse in human music than static sound,including reverb-any attempt you do agaist it will be better than status quo.If only for people whot want to recreate sound of Lexicons on PS /there are a lot/.Please consider this again.

ianmcallister
on Jun 12, 2009, 12:38am:

Aleksey Vaneev: It's clearly not enough to vary IRs from sample to sample. Reality is much more complex than that - when performer moves even by 1 inch, this produces a considerably different impulse response from microphone's perspective: early reflections get shifted most obviously. It's a lot more complex than just modulation between two IRs, because performer moves while he performs - he does not move in random or sinusoidal manner.

If i am in a cathedral, the pipes are ‘fixed’ in position, and the microphones for the recording or impulse capture are also fixed, yet the result is not as static as the ir.

Or in an echo chamber where source and mics are fixed, still sounds superior..

One of my points with audio examples, demonstrated the ir can not capture all easily audible information.

Real space doesn’t have a chorus on it to capture, but what is it that is not captured?

What’s missing in ir’s is much more subtle, but somehow vitally important.

On first listen the ir sounds awesome, and virtually identical, and it would be easy to say that if it’s 99% there then it is certainly good enough. But in real use, in music that tiny subtlety becomes a crucial factor.

We know that in some large spaces there is a very obvious pitch change in the tail.

If this is happening to a smaller extent in regular spaces but not so consciously obvious to us, we also know this would not be recorded by the impulse.

So as we know an ir does not capture all real acoustic behaviour,

we need to identify what that missing info is if we want to capture or mimic it

Yes, I understand your attitude and feelings about "staticness" of convolution, but it's not really constructive to tell "give me something I do not know what". This really requires an academic scientific research - so, this request should not be really directed at me. I myself have no clear idea what is required to make convolution sound "real".

kvaca
on Jun 12, 2009, 11:17am:

..."give me something I do not know what"...

For perfect and lively convo-reverb no research needed-Nebula approach should work here/volterra kernelling/.It should capture it all...And,simultaneously,much more powerfull computers needed.

This topic was last updated 180 days ago, and thus it was archived. Replying is disabled for this topic.